Aims. The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) femoral component. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All POPFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Results. A total of 11,018 THAs were implanted: 4,952 CC femoral components and 6,066 cemented PTS femoral components. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. Overall, 91 patients (0.8%) sustained a POPFF. For all patients with a POPFF, 16.5% (15/91) were managed conservatively, 67.0% (61/91) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 16.5% (15/91) underwent revision. The CC group had a lower POPFF rate compared to the PTS group (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.345). Fewer POPFFs in the CC group required surgery (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). Fewer POPFFs required surgery in males with a CC than males with a PTS (0.3% (7/2,121) vs 1.3% (36/2,674); p < 0.001). Conclusion. Male patients with a PTS femoral component were five times more likely to have a reoperation for POPFF. Female patients had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. Of those having a reoperation, 80.3% (61/76) had an ORIF, which could greatly mask the size of this problem in many registries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):144–150

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims. Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around cemented taper-slip femoral prostheses often result in a femoral component that is loose at the prosthesis-cement interface, but where the cement-bone interface remains well-fixed and bone stock is good. We aim to understand how best to classify and manage these fractures by using a modification of the Vancouver classification. Methods. We reviewed 87 PPFs. Each was a first episode of fracture around a cemented femoral component, where surgical management consisted of revision surgery. Data regarding initial injury, intraoperative findings, and management were prospectively collected. Patient records and serial radiographs were reviewed to determine fracture classification, whether the bone cement was well fixed (B2W) or loose (B2L), and time to fracture union following treatment. Results. In total, 47 B2W fractures (54.0%) and one B3 fracture (1.1%) had cement that remained well-fixed at the cement-bone interface. These cases were treated with cement-in-cement (CinC) revision arthroplasty. Overall, 43 fractures with follow-up united, and two patients sustained further fractures secondary to nonunion and required further revision surgery. A total of 19 B2L fractures (21.8%) and 19 B3 fractures (21.8%) had cement that was loose at the cement-bone interface. These cases were managed by revision arthroplasty with either cemented or uncemented femoral components, or proximal femoral arthroplasty. One case could not be classified. Conclusion. We endorse a modification of the original Vancouver system to include a subclassification of B2 fractures around cemented femoral prostheses to include B2W (where cement is well-fixed to bone) and B2L (where the cement is loose). Fractures around taper-slip design stems are more likely to fracture in a B2W pattern compared to fractures around composite beam design stems which are more likely to fracture in a B2L pattern. B2W fractures can reliably be managed with CinC revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):71–78

Aims. This aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Unified Classification System (UCS) for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) stems. Methods. Radiographs of 71 patients with a PFF admitted consecutively at two centres between 25 February 2012 and 19 May 2020 were collated by an independent investigator. Six observers (three hip consultants and three trainees) were familiarized with the UCS. Each PFF was classified on two separate occasions, with a mean time between assessments of 22.7 days (16 to 29). Interobserver reliability for more than two observers was assessed using percentage agreement and Fleiss’ kappa statistic. Intraobserver reliability between two observers was calculated with Cohen kappa statistic. Validity was tested on surgically managed UCS type B PFFs where stem stability was documented in operation notes (n = 50). Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa statistic between radiological assessment and intraoperative findings. Kappa statistics were interpreted using Landis and Koch criteria. All six observers were blinded to operation notes and postoperative radiographs. Results. Interobserver reliability percentage agreement was 58.5% and the overall kappa value was 0.442 (moderate agreement). Lowest kappa values were seen for type B fractures (0.095 to 0.360). The mean intraobserver reliability kappa value was 0.672 (0.447 to 0.867), indicating substantial agreement. Validity percentage agreement was 65.7% and the mean kappa value was 0.300 (0.160 to 0.4400) indicating only fair agreement. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the UCS is unsatisfactory for the classification of PFFs around PTS stems, and that it has considerably lower reliability and validity than previously described for other stem types. Radiological PTS stem loosening in the presence of PFF is poorly defined and formal intraoperative testing of stem stability is recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1339–1344

A: - determine the incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)

B: - determine the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for postoperative PFF

When using either CC or PTS femoral components.

Retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All PFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems.

Of the 11,018 THAs 4,952 were CC and 6,066 were PTS. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ.

A: - 55 (0.5%) had an intraoperative PFF. 44 CC and 11 PTS (p<0.001). 3 patients in each group had a femoral shaft fracture, remaining fractures were either the calcar (20 CC and 2 group) or the greater trochanter (11 CC and 6 PTS).

B: - 91(0.8%) sustained a postoperative PFF. Of those 15 were managed conservatively, 15 were revised and 61 (80.3%) had an ORIF. The CC group had both a lower overall rate of postoperative PFFs (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.341), and a lower rate of return to theatre (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). 1.3% of male PTS (36/2,674) had a reoperation compared to 0.3% of male CC (7/2,121) (p<0.001).

With regard to stem fracture there were none in the Corail group and 5 in the Exeter group. Of these 2 were sub trunnion and 3 were basal neck.

A: - There were significantly more intraoperative PFFs with CC 44 (0.8%) than PTS 11 (0.2%). However, the majority of fractures were either of the calcar or greater trochanter with no impact on early recovery or one year Oxford scores.

B: - Male PTS were five times more likely to have a reoperation for postoperative PFF. Females had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type.

There were 5 stem fractures in the Exeter group and none in the Corail.

These results represent robust estimates, which are likely to be more accurate than revision only studies typically generated from registry data.

Aims

The aim of this large registry-based study was to compare mid-term survival rates of cemented femoral stems of different designs used in hemiarthroplasty for a fracture of the femoral neck.

Standard practice in revision total hip replacement (THR) for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is to remove all cement from the femoral canal prior to implantation of a new component. This can make the procedure time consuming and complex.

Since 1991 it has been our practice to preserve the old femoral cement where it remains well fixed to bone, even if the cement mantle is fractured, and to cement a new component into the old mantle.

We have reviewed the data of 48 consecutive patients, treated at our unit between 1991 and 2009, with a first PPF around a cemented primary THR stem where a cement in cement revision was performed. 8 hips were revised to a standard length stem, 39 hips to a long stem & 1 patient had the same stem reinserted. All fractures were reduced and held with cerclage wires or cables and four had supplementary plate fixation.

Full clinical and radiographic follow up was available in 38 patients & clinical or radiographic follow up in a further 6 patients. The other 4 patients. without follow up but whose outcome is known, have suffered no complications and are pain free. Of the remaining 44 patients, forty-two went on to union of the fracture and two have required further surgery for non-union. One patient has ongoing undiagnosed hip pain.

Our long term experience with cement in cement revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures shows that this is a viable technique with a low complication rate and high rate of union (95%) in what is generally regarded as a very difficult condition to treat.

Aims. This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) around cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Data were collected for PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres between 25 May 2006 and 1 March 2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and AO/OTA type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (polished taper-slip (PTS) vs composite beam (CB)). The effect of multiple variables was estimated using multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Surgical treatment (revision vs fixation) was compared by UCS grade and AO/OTA type. Results. A total of 584 cases were included. Median age was 79.1 years (interquartile range 72.0 to 86.0), 312 (53.6%) patients were female, and 495 (85.1%) stems were PTS. The commonest UCS grade was type B1 (278, 47.6%). The most common AO/OTA type was spiral (352, 60.3%). Metaphyseal split fractures occurred only with PTS stems with an incidence of 10.1%. Male sex was associated with a five-fold reduction in odds of a type C fracture (OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.41); p < 0.001) compared to a type B fracture. CB stems were associated with significantly increased odds of transverse fracture (OR 9.51 (95% CI 3.72 to 24.34); p < 0.001) and wedge fracture (OR 3.72 (95% CI 1.16 to 11.95); p = 0.027) compared to PTS stems. Both UCS grade and AO/OTA type differed significantly (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) between the revision and fixation groups but a similar proportion of B1 fractures underwent revision compared to fixation (45.3% vs 50.6%). Conclusion. The commonest fracture types are B1 and spiral fractures. PTS stems are exclusively associated with metaphyseal split fractures, but their incidence is low. Males have lower odds of UCS grade C fractures compared to females. CB stems have higher odds of bending type fractures (transverse and wedge) compared to PTS stems. There is considerable variation in practice when treating B1 fractures around cemented stems. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):466–475

Aims. Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practised technique for a variety of indications in revision total hip arthroplasty. In this study, we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered femoral components. Methods. From our prospectively collated database, we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 to January 2013 who had a minimum of two years' follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-Stem AMT high offset No. 1 prosthesis. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Results. A total of 97 patients matched the inclusion criteria (50 Exeter and 47 C-Stem AMT components). There were no significant differences between the patient demographic data in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4 mm in this cohort compared with 0 mm in the C-Stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-Stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Conclusion. Our series shows promising mid-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-Stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1215–1221

Aims. The aim of this study was to radiologically evaluate the quality of cement mantle and alignment achieved with a polished tapered cemented femoral stem inserted through the anterior approach and compared with the posterior approach. Methods. A comparative retrospective study of 115 consecutive hybrid total hip arthroplasties or cemented hemiarthroplasties in 110 patients, performed through anterior (n = 58) or posterior approach (n = 57) using a collarless polished taper-slip femoral stem, was conducted. Cement mantle quality and thickness were assessed in both planes. Radiological outcomes were compared between groups. Results. No significant differences were identified between groups in Barrack grade on the anteroposterior (AP) (p = 0.640) or lateral views (p = 0.306), or for alignment on the AP (p = 0.603) or lateral views (p = 0.254). An adequate cement mantle (Barrack A or B) was achieved in 77.6% (anterior group, n = 45) and in 86% (posterior group, n = 49), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed factors associated with unsatisfactory cement mantle (Barrack C or D) included higher BMI, left side, and Dorr Type C morphology. A mean cement mantle thickness of ≥ 2 mm was achieved in all Gruen zones for both approaches. The mean cement mantle was thicker in zone 7 (p < 0.001) and thinner in zone 9 for the anterior approach (p = 0.032). Incidence of cement mantle defects between groups was similar (6.9% (n = 4) vs 8.8% (n = 5), respectively; p = 0.489). Conclusion. An adequate cement mantle and good alignment can be achieved using a collarless polished tapered femoral component inserted through the anterior approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):46–52

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral component represents a widely practiced technique for a variety of indications. In this study we compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two polished tapered stems. From our prospectively collated database we identified all patients undergoing cement-in-cement revision from January 2005 – 2013 who had a minimum of two years follow-up. All cases were performed by the senior author using either an Exeter short revision stem or the C-stem AMT high offset No 1. Patients were followed-up annually with clinical and radiological assessment. Ninety-seven patients matched the inclusion criteria. There were 50 Exeter and 47 C-stem AMT components. There were no significant differences between the patient demographics in either group. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. A significant improvement in OHS, WOMAC and SF-12 scores was observed in both cohorts. Leg lengths were significantly shorter in the Exeter group, with a mean of -4mm in this cohort compared to 0mm in the C-stem AMT group. One patient in the Exeter group had early evidence of radiological loosening. In total, 16 patients (15%) underwent further revision of the femoral component (seven in the C-stem AMT group and nine in the Exeter group). No femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. There were two cases of femoral component fracture in the Exeter group. Our series shows promising long-term outcomes for the cement-in-cement revision technique using either the Exeter or C-stem AMT components. These results demonstrate that cement-in-cement revision using a double or triple taper-slip design is a safe and reliable technique when used for the correct indications

Cemented total hip replacement (THR) provides excellent outcomes and is cost-effective. Polished taper-slip (PTS) stems demonstrate successful results and have overtaken traditional composite-beam (CB) stems. Recent reports indicate they are associated with a higher risk of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) compared to CB stems. This study evaluates risk factors influencing fracture characteristics around PTS and CB cemented stems. Data were collected for 584 PFF patients admitted to eight UK centres from 25/05/2006-01/03/2020. Radiographs were assessed for Unified Classification System (UCS) grade and Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type. Statistical comparisons investigated relationships by age, gender, and stem fixation philosophy (PTS versus CB). The effect of multiple variables was estimated using multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Median (IQR) age was 79.1 (72.0–86.0) years, 312 (53.6%) patients were female, and 495 (85.1%) stems were PTS. The commonest UCS grade was type B1 (278, 47.6%). The commonest AO/OTA type was spiral (352, 60.3%). Metaphyseal-split fractures occurred only with PTS stems with an incidence of 10.1%. Male gender was associated with a five-fold reduction in odds of a type C fracture (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41, p<0.001) compared to a type B fracture. CB stems were associated with significantly increased odds of transverse fracture (OR 9.51, 95% CI 3.72 to 24.34, p <0.001) and wedge fracture (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.16 to 11.95, p <0.05) compared to PTS stems. This is the largest study investigating PFF characteristics around cemented stems. The commonest fracture types are B1 and spiral fractures. PTS stems are exclusively associated with metaphyseal-split fractures, but their incidence is low. Males have lower odds of UCS grade C fractures compared to females. CB stems had higher odds of bending type fractures (transverse and wedge) compared to PTS stems. Biomechanical testing is needed for validation and investigation of modifiable factors which may reduce the risk of unstable fracture patterns requiring complex revision surgery over internal fixation

Aims

Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems.

Aims

Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PFFs) are a major complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Health status after PFF is not specifically investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the health status pattern over two years after sustaining a PFF.

Aims

We aimed to compare the implant survival, complications, readmissions, and mortality of Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) treated with internal fixation with that of B1 PFFs treated with internal fixation and B2 fractures treated with revision arthroplasty.

Aims

The Exeter V40 cemented polished tapered stem system has demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. This paper presents a systematic review of the existing literature and reports on a large case series comparing implant fractures between the Exeter V40 series; 125 mm and conventional length stem systems.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the initial results of the Exeter V40 stem, which became available in 2000.

Aims

Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement-in-cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well-fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short-term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well-fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used.

Aims

We present a minimum 20-year follow-up study of 382 cemented Exeter Universal total hip arthroplasties (350 patients) operated on at a mean age of 66.3 years (17 to 94).

The removal of well-fixed bone cement from the femoral canal during revision of a total hip replacement (THR) can be difficult and risks the loss of excessive bone stock and perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft. Retaining the cement mantle is attractive, yet the technique of cement-in-cement revision is not widely practised. We have used this procedure at our hospital since 1989. The stems were removed to gain a better exposure for acetabular revision, to alter version or leg length, or for component incompatibility.

We studied 136 hips in 134 patients and followed them up for a mean of eight years (5 to 15). A further revision was required in 35 hips (25.7%), for acetabular loosening in 26 (19.1%), sepsis in four, instability in three, femoral fracture in one and stem fracture in one. No femoral stem needed to be re-revised for aseptic loosening.

A cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem is a reliable technique in the medium term. It also reduces the risk of perforation or fracture of the femoral shaft.